Ethical Social Darwinism


Interfaith Forums
Reaction score
Edinburgh, scotland
Social Darwinism has a dirty name. Founded in Eugenics, the theory proposed by Darwin's cousin Francis Galton it achieved infamy in its adoption by far right supremacist hate groups, foremost amongst then the Nazi Party. Darwin argued against Social Darwinism unless it was done by education and free choice. Informed free choice. He fully realised the inhumanity of any forced program.

Was Darwin's view of education and choice being applied pie in the sky? Are populations capable of deciding en-mass to individually and voluntarily consider the bigger picture and decide to limit or decline to breed?

The 'official' story we are fed by our media is that there is a terrible population crisis, and though there is it is not nearly as dark as it is painted. The real problems that will face today's youth and their children will not be because there are too many people but a combination of political and environmental disaster brought about by intransigence and pan-global corruption. Despite the propaganda even allowing for land lost to rising seas there is plenty enough good fertile land to feed even the highest estimates of population growth. So there is no good argument for urgent 'enforced' limitations like we see in China with their one child policy.

But do we, as individuals, want to live in a world entirely dominated by man. The fewer of us there are the more resources there are per head. No maths genius required there. How much do we value wild spaces, are we going to look for some 'optimal minimum' or have a rich natural world ? We have already harvested natures greatest larder, the oceans, to the point where entire ecosystems are failing and once dominant and common species are facing extinction. Agriculture is dirty, inefficient and increasingly dominated by patented monoculture that favours only corporate/state ownership. The small farmer is himself an endangered species.

I am tempted to get into a rant now about how capitalism, and the economics of artificial scarcity it creates, make it impossible to be optimistic. Looking at the various politico-economic blocks that dominate our world we only see what can be described as mafia clans. And none of them have genuine long term strategies. We live in a world of rampant and obscene social narcissism. From top to bottom we all fight each other to exist. Nowehere is there any glimmer of a coherant effort made to address the concept of a long term strategy and it is because of the sytem. The combinaton of factors primarilly caused by peoples being subject to the control of small mafia gangs who get off on the power more than the money is the fact of human history. When we read our histories and its endless tales of treachery and murder to get power just remember our history will read like a golden age of "Don"manship.

The people of this planet, the 99.99999999 percent of people who have no choice in the descisions that are made in corporate/political boardrooms of the world are disenfranchised from any collective choice in anything, let alone such a complex concept like ethical Social Darwinism. So I say as yet it is impossible. Bleakly the only Social Darwinism I can imagine being used is biological megadeath. Which right now is a genuine fear of mine.
OK, Tao, I'll bite.

I don't particularly disagree with the wrongs you see, but I have serious reservations about how doing away with the "system" will ultimately be any form of improvement.

I agree the system as it stands has flaws, some of them pretty big. But to retreat to a "what's yours is yours and what's mine is mine" mentality would seriously diminish rather than enhance the distribution of raw material resources. I mean if you are one of the lucky nations that "has" a particular resource you are set, but Lord help you if you need a resource you don't exactly have. Fresh drinkable water is one example that comes to mind. Nevermind arable land, or suitable ranchland or fishing grounds. By the time one gets to strategic minerals, the spread between haves and have nots becomes so great that the problems our system has now would seem like a welcome blessing. Effectively a small part of the world could go to the moon while another significant part would be living in caves.

Then again, evolutionarily speaking, it would be a way to weed out the weak, no? Why have a war if you can watch the others waste away by diseases they have no way of averting, while you sit smugly on your stockpile of vaccine?

BTW, the "you" in this is rhetorical, I don't mean you Tao. ;)